A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and non-coplanar fixed field intensity modulated radiation therapy in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Frontiers in Oncology Pub Date : 2025-01-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fonc.2024.1428329
Huaqu Zeng, MinZhi Zhong, Zongyou Chen, Shukui Tang, Zunbei Wen
{"title":"A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and non-coplanar fixed field intensity modulated radiation therapy in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases.","authors":"Huaqu Zeng, MinZhi Zhong, Zongyou Chen, Shukui Tang, Zunbei Wen","doi":"10.3389/fonc.2024.1428329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric differences between non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost (HA-WBRT+SIB) for brain metastases using the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 22 patients with brain metastases were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiotherapy treatment plans were designed for each patient: non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT. The dose distribution of targets and organs at risk (OAR), the number of monitor units (MUs), and pre-treatment plan verification were compared between the two plans while meeting the prescribed dose requirements of the target volume.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in V<sub>50</sub>, V<sub>55</sub>, D<sub>max</sub>, heterogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of target PGTV between the two plans (<i>p</i>>0.05). For PTV-brain-SIB, there was no significant difference in D<sub>98%</sub> between IMRT and VMAT (<i>p</i>=0.103). VMAT significantly improved the V<sub>30</sub> of PTV-brain-SIB (<i>p</i><0.001), decreased HI (<i>p</i>=0.003), and increased CI (<i>p</i><0.001). There were no significant differences in the D<sub>max</sub> to the brain stem, left and right lens, optic chiasm, pituitary gland, and left and right hippocampus between the two plans (<i>p</i>>0.05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the D<sub>max</sub> to the left and right eyes (<i>p</i><0.001) and significantly increased the D<sub>max</sub> to the right inner ear (<i>p</i>=0.010). There was no significant difference in the D<sub>max</sub> to the left inner ear between VMAT and IMRT (<i>p</i>=0.458). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the D<sub>max</sub> to the left optic nerve (<i>p</i>=0.006), but significantly increased the D<sub>max</sub> to the right optic nerve (<i>p</i>=0.001). There was no significant difference in the D<sub>max</sub> to the left and right hippocampus between VMAT and IMRT (<i>p</i>>0.05), but VMAT significantly increased the D<sub>100%</sub> (<i>p</i><0.05) compared with IMRT. Compared with VMAT, IMRT significantly reduced the MU (<i>p</i><0.001) but VMAT has a higher treatment efficiency than IMRT, with an average reduction of 41 seconds (294.1 ± 16.4 s for VMAT, 335.8 ± 34.9 s for IMRT, <i>p</i><0.001). Under the conditions of 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, the gamma passing rate of the IMRT QA was improved compared to VMAT, with an average increase of 0.6%, <i>p</i>=0.013, and 1.7%, <i>p</i><0.001, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT based on the Monaco TPS produce clinically acceptable results for HA-WBRT+SIB in patients with brain metastases. Compared with IMRT, VMAT has better dose distribution in the target volume and treatment efficiency, but IMRT can better protect the hippocampus and reduce the number of MUs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12482,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Oncology","volume":"14 ","pages":"1428329"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11799273/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1428329","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric differences between non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost (HA-WBRT+SIB) for brain metastases using the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).

Method: A total of 22 patients with brain metastases were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiotherapy treatment plans were designed for each patient: non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT. The dose distribution of targets and organs at risk (OAR), the number of monitor units (MUs), and pre-treatment plan verification were compared between the two plans while meeting the prescribed dose requirements of the target volume.

Results: There were no significant differences in V50, V55, Dmax, heterogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of target PGTV between the two plans (p>0.05). For PTV-brain-SIB, there was no significant difference in D98% between IMRT and VMAT (p=0.103). VMAT significantly improved the V30 of PTV-brain-SIB (p<0.001), decreased HI (p=0.003), and increased CI (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the Dmax to the brain stem, left and right lens, optic chiasm, pituitary gland, and left and right hippocampus between the two plans (p>0.05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the Dmax to the left and right eyes (p<0.001) and significantly increased the Dmax to the right inner ear (p=0.010). There was no significant difference in the Dmax to the left inner ear between VMAT and IMRT (p=0.458). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the Dmax to the left optic nerve (p=0.006), but significantly increased the Dmax to the right optic nerve (p=0.001). There was no significant difference in the Dmax to the left and right hippocampus between VMAT and IMRT (p>0.05), but VMAT significantly increased the D100% (p<0.05) compared with IMRT. Compared with VMAT, IMRT significantly reduced the MU (p<0.001) but VMAT has a higher treatment efficiency than IMRT, with an average reduction of 41 seconds (294.1 ± 16.4 s for VMAT, 335.8 ± 34.9 s for IMRT, p<0.001). Under the conditions of 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, the gamma passing rate of the IMRT QA was improved compared to VMAT, with an average increase of 0.6%, p=0.013, and 1.7%, p<0.001, respectively.

Conclusion: Both non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT based on the Monaco TPS produce clinically acceptable results for HA-WBRT+SIB in patients with brain metastases. Compared with IMRT, VMAT has better dose distribution in the target volume and treatment efficiency, but IMRT can better protect the hippocampus and reduce the number of MUs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Oncology
Frontiers in Oncology Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Cancer Research
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
10.60%
发文量
6641
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Imaging and Diagnosis is dedicated to the publication of results from clinical and research studies applied to cancer diagnosis and treatment. The section aims to publish studies from the entire field of cancer imaging: results from routine use of clinical imaging in both radiology and nuclear medicine, results from clinical trials, experimental molecular imaging in humans and small animals, research on new contrast agents in CT, MRI, ultrasound, publication of new technical applications and processing algorithms to improve the standardization of quantitative imaging and image guided interventions for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
期刊最新文献
Rare skin adverse reactions induced by osimertinib: a case report and literature review. The effect of baseline versus early glucocorticoid use on immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and non-coplanar fixed field intensity modulated radiation therapy in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases. Effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: an indirect comparison. HLA-DMB correlates with antitumor immunity and an improved prognosis in endometrial carcinoma tumors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1